assessment of landscape preference in the botanical...

Soc. Bras. de Arborização Urbana REVSBAU, Piracicaba – SP, v.8, n.1, p.37-50, 2013

ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE IN THE BOTANICAL GARDEN OF CURITIBA, PARANÁ, BRAZIL

Raquel Ribeiro de Souza Silva1, Daniela Biondi2 3

ABSTRACT

The analysis of landscape preferences for plant individuals constitutes an important tool to evaluate and improve the tourism sector. The objective of this research was to assess the landscape in the Botanical Garden, the most visited

tourist attraction in the city of Curitiba, Paraná State, Brazil. We used postcards that portrayed the garden from the users’ perspective of the landscape. The purpose was to add qualitative data to this tourist attraction and provide subsidies for its management. For the analysis, we used the method of typology and landscape composition of ten postcards with the theme “The Botanical Garden of Curitiba” by landscape breakdown and quantification of elements previously defined as natural, cultural and anthropic. We selected the post cards with the highest percentage of natural, cultural and anthropic elements and presented them to users to respond a questionnaire. We examined the preference for the landscape in terms of the attractiveness. The results showed that users had greater preference for the postcards containing more cultural elements. Factors such as gender, age, educational formation and geographic origin of respondents influence their landscape preference.

Keywords: Landscape; Tourism; Perspective.

AVALIAÇÃO DA PREFERÊNCIA PAISAGÍSTICA NO JARDIM

BOTÂNICO DE CURITIBA, PARANÁ, BRASIL

RESUMO

A análise das preferências paisagísticas dos indivíduos constitui-se em uma importante ferramenta para avaliação e aprimoramento da experiência turística. O objetivo desta pesquisa foi realizar uma avaliação paisagística no atrativo mais visitado da cidade de Curitiba, o Jardim Botânico, através dos cartões postais que retratam sua imagem, considerando a percepção de seus usuários em relação à paisagem dos cartões postais, para assim agregar dados qualitativos sobre o uso deste atrativo e fornecer subsídios a sua gestão. O método utilizado foi análise da tipologia e da composição paisagística dos dez cartões postais com a temática “Jardim Botânico de Curitiba”, por meio da desagregação da paisagem e quantificação dos elementos previamente definidos como naturais, antrópicos e culturais. Em seguida, selecionaram-se aqueles que obtiveram a maior porcentagem de elementos naturais, antrópicos e culturais em sua composição para serem apresentados aos usuários que responderiam ao questionário e assim analisar a preferência paisagística destes em relação ao atrativo em estudo. Os resultados encontrados quanto à paisagem retratada nos cartões postais, o que apresentou a maior quantidade de elementos culturais foi o que mais agradou aos usuários. Ao se considerar os fatores gênero, faixa etária, escolaridade e origem geográfica do entrevistado encontraram-se variações na preferência paisagística. Palavras-chaves: Paisagem; Turismo; Percepção.

1 Bacharel em Turismo pela Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho. Mestre em Engenharia Florestal pela Universidade Federal do Paraná. Curitiba. Paraná. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Eng. Florestal. Profª. Drª Depto. de Ciências Florestais – Universidade Federal do Paraná. Curitiba. Paraná. E-mail: [email protected] 3 recebido em 30.05.2012 e aceito para publicação em 15.03.2013

ISSN 1980-7694 ON-LINE

Raquel Ribeiro de Souza Silva and Daniela Biondi

Soc. Bras. de Arborização Urbana REVSBAU, Piracicaba – SP, v.8, n.1, p.37-50, 2013 38

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the term “landscape” has numerous

definitions, which differ depending on the

academic background, experience and line study

of the researcher.

In this study, we will consider landscape as “a

set of natural or artificial scenarios where a

person is, besides an observer, one of the many

elements that compose the landscape” (Biondi,

1990).

We observe that landscape plays the most

significant role in tourism. Also, the relationship

between tourism and the landscape is marked by

inconsistency and can produce both positive and

negative effects to the environment and

community (MENESES , 2004).

Cruz (2002) states that in tourism, the landscape

is the first contact an individual has the site

visited; therefore, it is the main attractiveness of

these places.

Because they are the main attractiveness,

landscapes can be considered a visual evidence

of aesthetic and symbolic elements constructed

over time (SILVA, 2004). When landscape

elements are appropriate for individuals, they

arouse singular interest to the place visited and

contribute to its qualitative valuation.

In a context, where landscape plays a key role in

tourism, its composition and harmony of shapes

and colors are essential (SILVA, 2004). The

analysis of individuals’ preferences for a

landscape is a tool to evaluate and improve

quality of tourist sites.

Some landscape features are responsible for

preference or rejection of the observer and these

features can be concrete or abstract. Gonzáles

Bernáldes (1981) apud Bolós (1992) compiles

several authors and shows that concrete features

comprise the presence of water, vegetation and

minerals, while the abstract perspective is

defined by its appearance, complexity,

consistency, mystery, diversity and variety.

The combination of some of these elements

makes a landscape attractive to the observer; on

the other hand, their absence may cause

detachment.

Thus, when analyzing the preference for

landscapes, the knowledge of the landscape type

is a useful tool, as this information may provide

insights to understanding and discussions about

the reasons that make a landscape pleasant or

unpleasant in the eyes of the beholder.

Biondi (1990) attributes the following typology

to landscapes: panoramic, focused, closed,

centralized, limited and detailed (temporary).

In panoramic landscape, horizontal elements

predominate, the image remains in the

foreground and there are no limits to the vision.

Focused landscape, however, has aligned

parallel lines or objects that seem to converge to

a predominant focal point.

A closed landscape is defined by the presence of

visual barriers. Likewise, a limited landscape

has its space surrounded by visual barriers or

enclosed spaces.

In a centralized landscape, there is

predominance of a single component that center

the viewer's attention. Detailed or temporary

landscape, on the other hand, provides a

temporary observation of a landscape element

and produces an unusual impact due to

influences of unstable elements of nature.

ASSESSMENT OF LANDSCAPE PREFERENCE IN THE…


Bolós (1992) classifies landscapes in terms of

geographic characteristics and element

dominance and can be distinguished as natural,

artificial or anthropic.

We observe, therefore, a wide range of methods

to classify and to evaluate landscapes. The

choice for the classification and method will

depend exclusively on the objectives proposed

by the researcher.

This study aimed to evaluate the attractiveness

of the landscape of the Botanical Garden of

Curitiba City, Paraná State, Brazil. We used

postcards to conduct a survey on users’

perspective to obtain qualitative data of its

attractiveness and provide subsidies for its

management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Botanical Garden is in Curitiba, capital city

of Paraná State, Brazil, in the Jardim Botânico

neighborhood, between Avenida Lothário

Meissner and Rua Ostoja Roguski (Figure 1).

The garden covers 17.8 ha, between 25°26’S

and 49°14’W (RBJB, 2004).

Figure 1 – Botanical Garden of Curitiba.

Source: Google Earth (2009).

The Botanical Garden of Curitiba was opened

on October 5th, 1991, and provides several

activities for local residents and visitors. The

name of the garden honors the urbanist Maria

Francisca Garfunkel Rischbieter for her pioneer



work in urban planning in Curitiba (IPPUC,

2007).

The garden is used as a research center of the

flora of Paraná State, besides contributing to

nature preservation and conservation through

activities developed in the environmental

education center.

Besides the environmental and educational

aspects, the Botanical Garden of Curitiba has

significant importance as a tourist attraction,

which is served by the bus lines: Expresso

Centenário, Capão da Imbuia and Linha

Turismo.

According to the State Secretariat for Tourism,

the Botanical Garden of Curitiba was ranked as

the most visited site in the city in 2007 (IPPUC,

2007).

In 2009, according to the Municipal Institute for

Tourism, the Botanical Garden of Curitiba was

among the most visited sites in the city

(CURITIBA, 2009).

METHODS

To assess the user's landscape preference for

Botanical Garden of Curitiba, we used the

psychophysical method, previously used in

studies of Kischlat (2004).

The ten postcards for the Botanical Garden of

Curitiba (Figure 2) were analyzed in terms of

typology and landscape components as follows:

a) Square division 0.4 X 0.4 cm;

b) Definition of landscape typology in the ten postcards;

c) Definition of elements to be analyzed: natural, cultural and anthropic;

d) Quantification of squares for the elements;

e) Percentage of element occurrence in each landscape;

f) Selection of postcards to be evaluated by users.

Figure 2 – Postcards of Botanical Garden of Curitiba.



Source: Curitiba(2011).

We use landscape classification criteria for

landscape developed by Biondi (1990). The ten

postcards were classified according to the

landscape type and were later quantified

according to their elements.

We considered as natural landscape elements:

vegetation, the sky, water and relief. Vegetation

was subdivided into arboreal, grassland and

ornamental vegetation. For the analysis of

anthropogenic landscape elements, we

subdivided “construction” into physical

infrastructure and urbanization. The cultural

landscape elements were subdivided into

“monuments” and “people”.

The standard postcards measured 10.5 X 15 cm.

Therefore, after tests to identify the ideal size of

the cards to ensure good visualization, we

divided the card into 798 grid squares of 0.4 X

0.4 cm (Figure 3).



Figure 3 – Grid squares model.

Source: Curitiba (2011).

The postcards used in the survey were selected

according to the percentage of elements that

they displayed in the landscape. Thus, we

selected cards with a higher percentage of

natural, cultural and anthropic features.

In the questionnaire for landscape assessment,

respondents were asked to indicate their

preference in an order from 1 to 3. This allowed

to verify what components and landscape types

were more attractive to the respondents. In

addition, the results provided basis for a

discussion about landscape preference

according to its type and composition.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After defining the typology and analysis of

landscape elements in the ten postcards of the

Botanical Garden of Curitiba, we selected three

for the survey, considering the cards with the

highest percentage of natural, cultural and

anthropic elements.

The use of only three cards in the survey was

efficient in terms of time and space to obtain

responses, because tourists are not willing to

spend time with activities other than enjoying

their time at the attraction. Moreover, it was

practical for the researcher to handle the three

cards during the interviews.

Table 1 shows the general quantification of the

elements identified in the postcards assessed in

the study.


Soc. Bras. de Arborização Urbana REVSBAU, Piracicaba – SP, v.8, n.1, p.37-50, 2013

43

Table 1 – Landscape elements quantification in the postcards. Panoramic - postal Natural element Anthropic element Cultural element

1 82.8 16.7 0.5

2 70.3 29.7 0

3 89.3 9.8 0.9

4 69.2 20.5 10.3

5 82.3 17 0.7

6 92.6 7.4 0

7 83.6 10.4 6

8 95.2 4.8 0

9 77.5 14.5 8

10 88.5 10.4 1.1

Source: own data (2011).

We observed that the landscape in postcard 14

showed a higher percentage of anthropic

elements, postcard 43 showed a higher

percentage of cultural elements and postcard 89

showed a higher percentage of natural elements.

Figure 4 shows the three cards selected for the

survey.

Figure 4 – Predominance of landscape elements in postcards of the Botanical Garden of Curitiba. Postcard 14

Anthropic elements

Postcard 43

Cultural elements

Postcard 89

Natural elements


The landscapes of postcards 14 and 89 did not

have the cultural element in their landscape

composition. Therefore, we questioned the

respondents whether or not the landscape

preference was influenced by the presence or

absence of some of the elements defined for this

analysis.

Among the three cards presented to 985

respondents, 35% elected postcards 14 and 43

as the first preference, 41% chose postcard 14 as

their second preference and 52% chose postcard

89 as their third preference.

When we consider the gender factor, 31% of the

524 respondents were women and chose

postcard 43 as the first preference; 43% chose



postcard 14 as the second preference and 51%

chose postcard 89 as the third preference.

The female preference for postcard 43, which

features green and blue as dominant colors in

the landscape, also corroborates the results

found by Ficek and Ellis (2000). In the ranking

of color preferences among women, green and

blue figured in first and second places,

respectively.

In the opinion of 461 men, postcard 14 was

ranked first with 41% preference, postcard 43,

with 42% was elected second and postcard 89

was elected third with 54% of preference.

The preference of men for postcard 14, which

has a darker landscape and predominantly

shades of red, corroborates findings by Ficek

and Ellis (2000). The authors found that men

showed color preference for red over other

colors, while women were less favorable to dark

shades of red.

Our results confirm the hypothesis that

landscape preference is influenced by the

observer’s gender. According to Tuan (1980),

the gender factor when compared to other

categories, such as personality, congenital

influences and mood changes, is a safe variable

to explain human behaviors.

When considering the age factor, we observed

noticeable differentiation in landscape

preference between the different age groups.

Respondents at ages until 18 years old and

between 19-30 years old were the only ones to

rank postcard 14 first and postcard 89 last.

Respondents between 31-45 years old ranked

postcard 43 first, 14 second and postcard 89

remained in the last place.

However, the most significant result was

obtained in groups between 46-60 years old and

older, who ranked postcard 89 first and postcard

14 last.

We observed that the predominant preference

the respondents in the age group from 46 to 60

and over for postcard 89, which has the cold

colors blue and green as dominant in their

landscape, coincides with the statement Tuan

(1980) that preference for warm colors

decreases with increasing age.

The change in preferences according to age,

found in this study, is consistent with the study

of Zube, et al. (1983), who assessed landscape

preference considering the age range of

children, adults and seniors and found that the

correlation of results for adults over 65 years of

age and other adults showed significant

variations in landscape preference.

When considering the educational factor,

postcard 14 was ranked first for respondents

with a high school and college degree. Postcards

14 and 43 were tied for first and second places

for respondents with post-graduation education.

Only users with high school education ranked

postcard 43 in first place. Many respondents

who reported having completed high school

were adults, not young students.

We observed that, in general, the results

considering the level of schooling coincided

with landscape preference by age, because

respondents of a certain age range have the

same education level.

Respondents of all schooling levels ranked

postcard 89 in last place.

YU (1995), in his study with a group of Chinese

and Western experts in landscape, found

influence of education levels on landscape

preference. The author also reported that a

general education level coupled with experience

in the studied environment influenced

respondents’ preference more than the expertise

level in the subject.



In our study, the variable education also

influenced landscape preference, even without

considering the expertise level of responds in

relation to the elements considered in the

landscape study.

When considering the geographical origin

factor, only residents of Curitiba ranked

postcard 14 in first place.

Although postcard 14 has as one of its negative

aspects the absence of representation, for

residents in Curitiba, this landscape is not

strange and among the other postcards for the

Botanical Garden, postcard 14 was considered

the most attractive.

Respondents coming from other metropolitan

cities from other states and countries ranked

postcard 43 in first place. This postcard showed

the greatest diversity of elements and was

ranked first in the overall landscape preference,

thus justifying the respondents’ choice for three

elements.

Only respondents from other cities of Paraná

ranked postcard 89 in first, while all other

respondents ranked it in last.

Some studies support the claim that landscape

preference is influenced by cultural factors

(YANG; BROWN, 1992, YU, 1994, GOVER,

GO, 2009). These studies report that the socio-

demographic characteristics have an impact on

the perception that people have of places.

In our research, the variable geographical origin

also influenced landscape preference. However,

the absence of studies on the relationship

between landscape preference and geographical

origin in Brazil does not allow further

discussion on the subject.

Explanations for electing preference for first

and last postcard indicated that respondents’

overall perception of landscape regarding the

images selected for this study were repeated,

regardless of the variables used.

We opted to show the results highlighting the

strengths and weaknesses of each of the three

cards from the respondents’ perspective (Table

1).

Table 1 – Landscape perception of postcards of the Botanical Garden of Curitiba. 1st place postcard 43

2nd place postcard 14

3rd place postcard 89



Positive aspect Elements diversity: 49% Negative aspect Cultural element monument: 46%

Natural element water: 5%

Positive aspect Natural element sky: 37% Natural lighting: 48% Negative aspect Representativeness: 15%

Positive aspect Natural element vegetation: 35% Negative aspect Panoramic landscape – distance: 41%

Representativeness of the element sky: 15% Color tone: 11%


a) Postcard 43: positive and negative

aspects

The positive aspect for this postcard mentioned

by 49% of respondents was the combination of

the cultural, natural and anthropic elements in

the same scenario, resulting, according to

Biondi and Leal (2002), in a combination of

representativeness of the maximum intensity of

a landscape for having a set of attractive

landscape in its totality.

Bastarz (2009) conducted a study on landscape

preference in the city of Morretes, Paraná State,

Brazil, and found the diversity of landscapes

and tourist components as positive aspect in

landscapes.

Diversity expresses landscape variety and has

greater value than homogeneous landscape, due

to the presence of distinct visual elements and

absence of monotony (CANTERAS, 1992).

Regarding the negative aspects, the presence of

the water element in the landscape of this

postcard was mentioned by 5% of respondents

as something they would remove from the

landscape at the expense of making it more

attractive.

This result differs from statements about the

positive influence of water as well as the visual

attraction it exerts on observers of landscapes

(TUAN, 1980, ZUBE, et al., 1983, YU, 1995,

GONZAGA, et al., 2004, FYHRI , et al. 2009).

The small amount of water in the postcard

evaluated might justify the negative valuation

given by respondents.

Another negative aspect mentioned about the

landscape in postcard 43 was the cultural

element, represented by the monument, which

receives greater emphasis in scenery and

contrasts sharply with the other elements. This

aspect was considered by 46% of respondents as

a landscape detractor. Respondents also

highlighted that they would remove it from the

postcard to make it more attractive visually.

Biondi and Leal (2002) state that the presence

of contrasting elements in the landscape

increases or decreases its visual quality. Thus,

for the respondents, the visual quality of this

postcard decreased due to the contrast of

elements in the landscape.

b) Postcard 14 – positive and negative

aspects

The positive aspects mentioned by 37% of

respondents was the type of temporary

landscape, represented by sunset and the

varying shades of colors that make the sky

(natural element) more attractive at the end of

the day. The sunset inside the greenhouse of the

Botanical Garden of Curitiba was mentioned by

48% of respondents as positive factor of

postcard 14.



The presence of natural elements is a positive

factor for landscapes in tourism (LEMES;

NEVES, 2007). Thus, although postcard 14 has

predominance of anthropic elements in its

landscape composition, its temporary typology

confirms the existence of a close connection

between tourism and preference for natural

landscapes.

On the other hand, artificial lighting, which is a

major architectural element and can be scenic or

effect, depending on the objectives of the

projects developed (BRONDANI, 2006), plays

an important role in the urban landscape. The

presence of a scenic artificial luminosity

emphasizes points of interest, besides enhancing

public and tourist sites.

Barbosa (2007) states that artificial lighting

greatly influences human reactions to the

environment, which can range from the simple

vision of the obvious to the perception of

dramatic beauty of an illuminated landscape.

The nocturnal representation of the Crystal

Palace of the Botanical Garden of Curitiba in

postcard 14 gathered all these features.

Regarding the negative aspect of postcard 14,

15% of respondents mentioned the lack of

representativeness. They claim that only the

image of the Crystal Palace is not enough to

identify the Botanical Garden of Curitiba and to

demonstrate its total scenic beauty.

For Gândara (2008), the image of a tourist site

should correspond to reality, be credible, easy to

understand and capable of arousing a desire to

visit. In postcard 14, these requirements were

not fully addressed, because the understanding

of the elements on site and the signs of the

Botanical Garden of Curitiba are not observable

for the viewer.

c) Postcard 89 – positive and negative

aspects

The presence of the natural element vegetation,

represented by flowers and gardens that

compose most landscape in this postcard was

valued positively by 33% of respondents.

This result is in line with previous studies,

which showed that the presence of vegetation is

a factor that enhances the landscape quality

(GONZAGA, et al., 2004) and (CORRAZZA,

2008).

As negative aspect of this postcard, 15% of

respondents cited the proportion of sky in the

natural landscape, which received a negative

valuation. Bobrowski et al. (2010) also found a

negative correlation between the visual quality

of the landscape and the sky component, stating

that the largest proportion of the sky component

affected the heterogeneity of landscapes used in

landscape assessment.

However, other studies show that this

component did not influence positively or

negatively results on respondents’ preference

for landscape and is considered a landscape

element of neutral valuation (BASTARZ, 2009)

and (KISCHALAT, 2004).

We observed that the preference for the element

sky in the landscape is very subjective and can

be positive or negative according to the

observer. The balance of elements in a

landscape is essential to enhance its visual

quality, and postcard 89 does not meet this

requirement.

Another negative aspect, mentioned by 11% of

respondents, regarding this postcard was the

unattractive color tone, making the picture look

dull and old-looking.

This result confirms the statements of Litton

(1972), Gonzales (1981) and Canteras (1992)

that the primary visual property of a surface is

its color, and the main aesthetic properties of a

landscape largely determined by its color



combination. Gama (2009) further states that the

visual contrasts are the color combination,

which accounts for giving life to the landscape.

The absence of color tones visually attractive

was definitely one of the aspects that

corroborate negative valuation for this postcard.

The last negative aspect mentioned by 41% of

respondents was the panoramic landscape

typology in this postcard, which, despite

allowing a wide view of the Botanical Garden,

was not attractive due to the distance in the

perspective and the small size of the main

attraction, i.e., the Crystal Palace.

Griffith (1983) found different results in his

study on the visual resources of a national park,

in which a visitor is attracted by the scope and

magnitude of the panoramic views.

This postcard had more negative than positive

aspects, thus justifying its overall rank in last

place in the respondents’ preference.

These results highlight the lack of consistency

for substitute landscape displayed in the

postcards, and real scenic beauty existing in the

tourist site. Meneses (2002) underscores that

although postcards are powerful catalysts of

landscaped landmarks, the portrayal of

landmarks does not always correspond to

reality.

Moreover, postcards are listed as the few

promotional products from a location that

tourists to influence tourists even after the return

journey. They are tools used to share memories

(GOVERS, GO, 2009) and serve as sort of

demonstration of ongoing experience during the

trip.

Considering contributions to landscape

management of the Botanical Garden of

Curitiba, we highlight that tourism uses the

resources of the “view”, “place” and “images”

closely related to the landscape through

postcards, which are important tools for the

dissemination of tourist attractions

(SOBRINHO, 2004).

CONCLUSION

Our findings on landscape portrayed on

postcards show that the presence of cultural

elements in the picture of postcard 43 was more

visually attractive to respondents; however, we

found variations for this landscape preference

when considering the factors of gender, age,

educational background and geographic origin.

Therefore, as basis for landscape management

of the Botanical Garden of Curitiba, we

recommend improvements in the images

disseminated through postcards, because of the

lack of visual attractiveness in some of the

postcards, according to the respondents’

opinion, as well as the discrepancy between the

real beauty of the place and the images

portrayed in postcards.



REFERENCES

BASTARZ, C. Análise da preferência da paisagem do município de Morretes, Paraná como subsídio ao planejamento do turismo. 123 f. Dissertação. (Mestrado).

BIONDI, D. Paisagismo. Recife: Imprensa Universitária da UFRPE, 1990

BARBOSA, L. A. G. História e conceitos de iluminação. Pós-graduação em Projetos de Iluminação. Universidade Estácio de Sá, Rio de Janeiro, 2007.

BIONDI, D.; LEAL, C. T. Análise da capacidade paisagística do Parque Estadual de Vila Velha, PR. In: III CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE UNIDADES DE CONSERVAÇÃO, 2002. Fortaleza: FBPN. p. 359-367. Anais...

BOLÓS y CAPDEVILA, M. Manual de Ciencia del Paisaje: Teoría, Métodos e

Aplicaciones. Barcelona: Masson S.A., 1992.

BRONDANI, S. A. A percepção da luz artificial no interior de ambientes edificados. 153 f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção). Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, UFSC, Florianópolis, 2006.

CANTERAS, J. C. Introducción al paisaje. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria, 1992.

CURITIBA. Instituto Municipal de Turismo. Pesquisa de demanda turística, perfil e opinião. Curitiba, 2009.

________: Jardim Botânico. Paraná – Brasil. Curitiba: Mundial Postais. cartão postal: color.

CRUZ, RITA C. A. As paisagens artificiais criadas pelo turismo. In: YÁZIGI, E. (org). Turismo e paisagem. São Paulo: Contexto, 2002, p. 107-119.

FICEK, C.; ELLIS, L. Color preferences according to gender and sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, v. 31, n. 8, p. 1375 – 1379, 2001.

FYHRI, A.; JACOBSEN, J. K. S.; TØMMERVIK, H. Tourists’ landscape perceptions and preferences in a Scandinavian coastal region. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 91, n. 4, p. 202–211, 2009.

GALVÃO, W.; SANTOS, A. C.; PIACESKI, C.; GOOD, P. L.; NUCCI, J.C. Conservação da natureza no município de Curitiba/PR. GEOUERJ. Rio de Janeiro, 2003 (CD ROM).

GAMA, L. L. M. F. Testagem de instrumentos de valoração da qualidade visual da paisagem para fins de planejamento paisagístico. In: Simpósio Nacional de Geografia Física Aplicada, 2009, Viçosa – MG. Disponível em: <http://www.geo.ufv.br/simposio/simposio/trabalhos/resumos_expandidos/eixo12/021.pdf>. Acesso em 22/12/2011.

GÂNDARA, J.M.G. A imagem dos destinos turísticos urbanos. Revista Eletrônica de Turismo Cultural. Disponível em: <http://www.eca.usp.br/turismocultural/numeroespecial.htm>. Acesso em: 18/11/2011.

GONZALEZ-BERNALDEZ, F. Ecología y Paisaje. Madrid: H. Blume Ediciones, 1981.

GONZAGA, C. A. M.; WANDEMBRUCK, A.; SEGER, C. D.; BIONDI, D. 2004. Análise paisagística da trilha recreativa do Parque Municipal do Passaúna, Curitiba, Paraná. Cad. Biodivers., v. 4, n. 2, p. 66-73, 2004

GOOGLE EARTH. Mapa Jardim Botânico Municipal. Curitiba, 2009.

GRIFFITH, J. J. Análise dos recursos visuais do Parque Nacional do Caparaó. Floresta, v. 14, n. 2, p. 15-21, 1983.

INSTITUTO DE PESQUISA E PLANEJAMENTO URBANO DE CURITIBA (IPPUC). Estatística - Demanda Turística de Curitiba, 2007. Disponível em: <http://www.ippuc.org.br/.../Curitiba_em_dados_Pesquisa.asp>. Acesso em: 31/05/ 2010.

KISCHLAT, E. Metodologia para Avaliação da Preferência Visual de Recursos Naturais da Paisagem para Fins Turísticos. Estudo de Caso nos Municípios de Benedito Novo e Dr. Pedrinho – SC. 145 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Florestal). Setor de Ciências Agrárias, UFPR, Curitiba, 2004.



LEMES, F. B.M; NEVES, S. C. Dos ecos do turismo aos ecos da paisagem: analises das tendências do ecoturismo e a percepção de suas paisagens. Pasos, Revista de Turismo y Patrimônio Cultural, v. 5, n. 2, p. 209-223, 2007.

LITTON Jr., R. B. Aesthetic Dimensions of Landscape. In: KRUTILLA, J. V. Natural Enviroments: studies in Theoretical and Applied analysis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1972, p. 263-291.

MENESES, U. T. B. A paisagem como fato cultural. In: YÁZIGI, E. (org). Turismo e paisagem. São Paulo: Contexto, 2002, p. 29-64.

REDE BRASILEIRA DE JARDINS BOTÂNICOS (RBJB). Jardim Botânico Municipal FMGR. Diversidade biológica nos jardins botânicos brasileiros. Rio de Janeiro, 2004.

SILVA, M. G. L. Cidades Turísticas: Identidades e Cenários de Lazer. São Paulo: Aleph, 2004 (Série Turismo).

SOBRINHO, F. L. A. Lugares, olhares e imagens: uma breve discussão sobre planejamento turístico. Múltipla, v. 10, n.16, p. 71 – 91, 2004.

TUAN, Y. F. (trad. Lívia de Oliveira). Topofilia: um estudo da percepção, atitudes e valores do meio ambiente. São Paulo: Difel, 1980.

YANG, B-E; BROWN, T. J. A cross-cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, v. 24, n. 4, p. 471-507, 1992.

YU, K. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 32, n. 2, p.107–126, 1995.

ZUBE, L. H.; PITT, D. G.; EVANS, G. W. A lifespan developmental study of landscape assessment. Jornal of Environment Psychology, v. 3, n. 2, p. 115-128, 1983.

assessment of landscape preference in the botanical...

Documents